Can East River along Queens be filled in ?

[DumbDumb2007]

Can the East River between Roosevelt Island and Queens simply be filled in ? the whole island could be redevolped with subways and extensions of Queens Blvd and the LIE bringing people closer to Manhattan. whole new subways and a new underground train station, Penn Station 2 or Jamaica train station 2 could be built there.

 

[TerriO]

I'm not sure what this obsession of yours with NYC and eliminating all of the waterways around it is, but fill land is not that stable. Look at the slurry walls needed to build the World Trade Center towers and the term "liquefaction" if you need any further information.

 

[M'Sharak]

What could or could not be built on the new acreage aside, filling in the East River would also have a significant (and, I suspect, extremely undesirable) effect on tidal flows into and out of western Long Island Sound. It would almost certainly bung up the balance of the entire marine ecosystem in that area and very probably lead to its complete or near-complete silting-in.

 

[Trekker4747]

If I'm not mistaken, a good bit of Chicago is built on the landfill ruins after the Chicago fire.

You'd never be able to build huge, tall, buildings on landfill and you'd need to pack it and let it settle for a few years before really trying to build and I even think some of New York is already built on landfill.

So I think it's possible.

Hell. New York has to do SOMETHING with all their garbage.

 

[Maurice]

DumbDumb posts questions like this all over the site, I'm afraid.

 

[TerriO]

Trekker4747 said:
Hell. New York has to do SOMETHING with all their garbage.

Dude, we're not in TNZ, I can't actually comment on that without having to warn myself. That's just mean.


Folks, I'm pretty sure I know what we're all thinking here. However, let's try to give the benefit of the doubt and actually try to discuss the subject, please?

Thanks.

 

[ex nihilo]

TerriO said:
. . . but fill land is not that stable. Look at the slurry walls needed to build the World Trade Center towers and the term "liquefaction" if you need any further information.

Trekker4747 said:
You'd never be able to build huge, tall, buildings on landfill and you'd need to pack it and let it settle for a few years before really trying to build and I even think some of New York is already built on landfill.

If I may be so bold . . .

Both quotes above are not accurate. Japan has built numerous structures on land “reclaimed” from Tokyo Bay through the process of infill. Liquefaction is a concern, since Japan is seismically active in the extreme, but the Japanese have engineered ways to mitigate this. Nearly 250 square kilometers of the Bay have been reclaimed since the Meiji era.

As for building large structures on reclaimed land, Japan’s largest skyscraper, the multiuse Landmark Tower, is built in the Minato Mirai 21 district (Port Future 21, also know colloquially as “Futuristic Town”) of Yokohama, which is largely (over 2/3) built on reclaimed land.

Now, as to the OP’s original purpose I cannot fathom to guess. Japan, and the megalopolis that consists of Tokyo and the cities surrounding it, is unique in the sense that land is at a premium. Here in the States land is still quite abundant leaving more cost effective options open to developers. Jeez, if a business wanted to stay on Manhattan Island, there are plenty of areas that are in dire need of revitalization and reuse.

 

[TerriO]

Condensing all of these threads into one at this thread.